Slashdot Mirror
Games Analysts Weighs In On Console War
Gamaustra's latest in its 'Analyze This' series asks the question point blank: Which Console Will 'Win' 2007? The regular series puts weighty questions to business analysts who specialize in the games industry, to get a gestalt opinion on what's really going on. The well-respected Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Morgan Securities, had some of the most interesting comments to review. He says that Nintendo will 'appear' to win in 2007 because of its low price and innovative control scheme, but that Sony will be the winner in the long run. From the article: "My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008, and games start looking noticeably better in 2009. That's when Sony starts looking like the winner of the next generation battle. All of this is pretty far out, and a lot can happen with pricing to change things. For example, if Sony gets down the cost curve for Blu-ray and Cell processors, [the PS3] may be below $300 shortly thereafter. It's hard to say that this will happen before 2009, but it could. That would change everything."
I am actually more interested about new game styles than new game console. The WII has added some new possibilities and shows potential, certainly looking more reliable than the camera games on my PS2 (The NIKE game. I am a master in karate according to that game by just flapping my arms up and down, lighting is nearly impossible to get correct, and the distance which you need between camera and screen varies all the time).
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
...that I'm not a game analyst. But frankly, sir, I disagree.
But if Sony still has a couple of years to go before they get enough consoles out there, how will they hold on to developers and in particular exclusive titles? If a publisher can't count on selling half a million copies of an exclusive PS3 title to break even (games are costly to produce these days) by virtue of there not being enough PS3s out there to begin with (and you need far more than half a million PS3s of course), then that publisher will sign deals with Microsoft and Nintendo as well if not instead.
On top of that, with the money Sony is losing per console right now, they will have to sell a lot of games per console sold in order to break even. PS2 might be keeping SCE afloat, but I don't really see PS3 keeping a PS4 afloat at all considering how drastically the course of things would need to change.
I like basketball!!1!
All they have to do is cut the price in half and get more good games out. Lets see, if we use our friend history the PS2 took nearly four years to get to half price. So as we close in on 2011 the PS3 should hit that $300 price point he claims is needed. People just need to realize that this is an expensive piece of electronics and Sony can't cut the price to that point anytime soon. They will need something else to win.
h istory
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Price_
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?
If sony actually managed to get a $300 PS3 out, it would change dramatically the number of sold consoles. Without a doubt. The problem is GETTING to that price point. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, Sony has completely priced themselves out of this generation of consoles...and that without the fact that Sony's dropping what, $250 per console? Dont get me wrong, I'm NOT a Sony hater...but Nintendo has got a genuinely fun system to play on the cheap, and Microsoft has a year head start. With the disapointing sales numbers for the PS3 so far, will Sony be able to attract the high-end exclusive games they've had in the past, when the installed base for the Wii is double, or triple, their penetration? I say no, but it is true that only time will tell. Can they win long-term? Mabye...but it is likely they HAVE to win the HD Format War before they win this console war. If HD-DVD wins, Sony's in for a MAJOR hurt.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Directly contradicting this story, I read the print edition of the Wall Street Journal (expensive subscription required) and it said that in point of fact - as also backed by articles in Fortune and Forbes - that Sony is losing the format war to HD-DVD, due to low adoption rates by pr0n providers, low sales of the PS3 consoles, and labels shunning the format. Perhaps if someone were prognosticating back in October 2007, such a forecast might have seemed reasonable, but the post-Christmas sales figures in the US and Japan as well as worldwide show that adoption rates are sub-par.
But, live in a dream world if you must.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I constantly see people mention that the console war is a "Marathon not a Sprint" which, from what I have seen, is completely wrong. The console war is a sprint to the point where developers simply are forced to heavily support your system; if you have enough of a lead at this point you tend to have support at the expense of other systems.
I don't know where the point is, and I don't know when any of the systems will hit it, but it is foolish to assume that the PS3 will have an easy time catching up in 2008/2009 simply because it has better graphics.
If sony actually managed to get a $300 PS3 out, it would change dramatically the number of sold consoles.
This is a true statement. Notice the street price in Japan has already been slashed, even before the EU launches, as they try to deal with lower console sales there. Prices haven't dropped in the US market, but the product isn't moving either, according to a number of online and print articles in various business sources - WSJ, CNN Business, CNBC, etc.
With the massive console losses already in place, it might be better to realize who the real competition is - Nintendo's Wii console - and fight them on price. Because, frankly, Sony has a better console at the same price point of the Wii, at least on graphics and speed, even if they don't have a full-fledged motion controller.
You fight the battle with the enemy that's there, not the enemy you lied to yourself would be there.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008
Ummm, when did the console wars become 'who can push the most movies'?
Another reason why I don't care what the analysts say. I buy a console for games. Period. Have fun watching your movies on your PS3 until 2009, when games apparently get made for the PS3? WTF?
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
I do not see Sony winning the format war with blu-ray. Hell, No porn! http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9008579
Not trying to beat a dead horse here but please..
With the massive console losses already in place, it might be better to realize who the real competition is - Nintendo's Wii console - and fight them on price. Because, frankly, Sony has a better console at the same price point of the Wii, at least on graphics and speed, even if they don't have a full-fledged motion controller.
The Wii is indeed killing them, and if there was sufficient stock, it would probably be killing the 360 as well. But considering the high-end technology used in the PS3, and the cost to manufacture, Sony quite frankly can't afford to fight the Wii on Price. At most likely we're looking at a minimum of 2 years before Sony can even come close.
By that time, nintendo should be able to drop there's to lets say even 2/3 of what the price is now. So you have $300 vs $175-ish. Without some seriously fun exclusives, Sony still can't compete on price, will be dropping hundreds of dollars still per unit sold, and while graphically superior, will probably not be able to compete with the Wii on the fun-factor.
I'm not saying Sony is doomed, but they're humped the dog on the PS3, and it will take some marketing genius AND developers jumping hard on board to save their ass.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The interesting thing with the Japaneese price is that the PS3 is still not selling particularly well there and almost more systems are sold than games (22,250 systems to 13,000 games link in the last week, but typically the tie-ratio is close to 1) ...
...
It seems like Japan is (mostly) not interested in the PS3
This all bullshit speculation. How can someone, say what he's said, especially with the current state of things? PS3 is getting it's ass kicked, hardcore. They can't sell the things at current prices. Fanbois are the only ones buying them. The rest are sitting on shelves, wasting space. When Japan drops the price on the newest PS's then you know there's a serious problem. has this guy even read all of the backlash out there, as far as, people wanting a gaming system and not a next generation DVD player?
t ion+3.+wii
o n+3.+wii&ctab=1&sa=N
o n+3.+wii&ctab=2&sa=N
t ab=0&sa=N
Hmm, do trends even matter?
Cities
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playsta
Regions
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360,+playstati
Languages
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360,+playstati
I have a feeling Sony is now paying people to write up baseless bullshit like this guy.
Does anyone actually know a person who wants a PS3? I don't and my friends are all gamers.
Same reasons, as for not wanting one....
1) Too expensive
2) Don't need/want a Blu-Ray player
3) No games
4) Too expensive
The Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD is also pure speculation
More trends -
http://www.google.com/trends?q=blue-ray,+hd-dvd&c
Personally I believe HD-DVD will win or both formats with coexist because -
1) HD-DVD is cheaper to manufacture
2) Porn has chosen HD-DVD as it's main format
3) Blu-Ray is Sony's format - this makes, some people hate it, period.
4) Much more expensive to manufacture
Blu-Ray's only plus is more storage, but don't we have way too many, trivial extras, on movie disks and do we really need 1,000,000 cgi-cutscenes, in game? Blu-Ray space is only a plus on the pc storage side of things.
Anyway, to paraphrase, that article is total bullshit....the end:D
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Are these people all getting paid by Sony, or something? Seriously. IANAGA, but it's not rocket science to be able to know the main driving forces behind the console gaming market. The _only_ customers the PS3 attracts are the techno-whores with lots of disposable income, extreme fans of a small handful of exclusives, and people who want a "cheap" Blu-Ray player while it still seems like it could end up being akin to buying a betamax player. The main factors that drive the console market: 1) Available games. The 360 currently leads the pack, and may continue to do so for some time. It may be passed by the Wii at some point, but is unlikely to be passed by the PS3. 1a) Ease of development. The 360 and Wii are a _hell of a lot_ easier to develop games for than the PS3, and cheaper, too. 2) Total cost of ownership. The 360 and Wii cost less (the Wii a lot less) and the Wii's games cost less. That makes them a lot more attractive to the average consumer thank the PS3. Exclusive titles, though a definite boost to sales, don't even really factor into the big picture. The Gamecube had several exclusives in franchises that had a great many fans, yet that didn't somehow propel them to the top last generation, and the GC was _cheaper_ than its competitors. Seriously, I can analogize this situation pretty easily: PC vs. Mac. Apple was top dog back in the pre-GUI days, and they went on to make the Mac. PCs, however, were cheaper, and had more third party support, and got more software. By the logic of a lot of these analysts, the Mac should have come out on top, which is pretty far from what actually happened. :P
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
So what?
I know, they've been involved in all kinds of terrible anti-customer sorts of things lately. The fact is, I've never been unhappy with a Sony product. I think that their product quality is excellent. My portable CD player would be stolen or misplaced before breaking down, while I've lost two competing brands to a mis-aligned laser. They consistently had better battery life in their portable products than their competitors. PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titles being released for it. There's some excellent titles for PSP. I'm planning to purchase a PS/3 in the next year or so, and I expect I'll be equally happy with it. I also don't expect that I'll have to replace it within 5 years.
Overall, Sony has a good track record. I think that there will be people who boycott them over the blinking PS/3 fiasco or the PSP astroturfing, but overall business will be good and many terrific titles will make their way to PS/3.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
The game play is what will keep the Wii from aging fast.
:wq
I was surprised by how good the analyst opinions were. They all pretty much said the same thing: Wii is doing well, MS is on track, and Sony is lagging a bit now ... but it's still too early to say who the long-term market leader will be. I think that's definately the right approach to take.
In contrast, here's a typical fanboy view of all the consoles:
Wii
Pro: Wii-mote rules! It's all about the innovation and gameplay. Sony and MS have none of that, so they're doomed! Who cares about HD? Look at the holiday sales! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: The Wii was doomed from the start when they released the hardware specs. HD is the wave of the future. The "waggle" is just a gimmick, no one is going to want a "GameCube 1.5" months from now. Nintendo is DOOMED.
Xbox 360
Pro: First to 10 million baby! Also, see how Sony is losing exclusives left and right. Xbox Live all the way. Finally, Halo 3 babeeee! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: M$ should go back to making Windows. 360 is failing in Japan, and red-lights are everywhere! M$ is DOOOMED.
Playstation 3
Pro: Blu-ray all the way baby! PS3 is the real next-gen and HD. Also, the PS2 is still selling like hot-cakes. Finally, you can't deny the power of MGS4 and FFXIII. We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: Batteries exploding, root kits, and constant PR fiascos. Also, PS3s sitting on shelves everywhere? $ony is DOOMED!
Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them. However, it's still way too early to tell anything, especially when consoles generally last for years and perceptions change quickly. Remember how doomed many people thought Nintendo was when they first announced the "Wii" name? Or how silly the DS seemed, compared to the sexiness of the PSP? Or about how solid the PlayStation brand was a year and half ago?
Yeah, go figure.
-- jchenx
Plus, it doesn't even consider that Sony is already taking a loss on the sale of each system, so to make up selling that many more systems, the software attach rate has to increase substantially. That's really not going to happen, especially this early in a console life-cycle.
As much as gamers would love for Sony to drop the PS3 price drastically (myself included), I really can't see them doing it any time soon, without totally tanking the business side of things. After all, they are ultimately beholden to their shareholders.
-- jchenx
If you change the search for PS3 instead of "playstation 3" and use "," instead of "." to seperate PS3 from Wii, the trend seem to be that PS3 is consistently above XBOX360, and almost identical to Wii. But in the very latest results, Wii has outrun PS3.
If you look at at the cities/regional/language bars below, PS3 is consistently in top for all cities, regions and languages, with Wii and XBOX 360 fighting for the second spot. However, Wii is seriously handicapped by being known under a different name for half the period.
-- jchenx
The price hasn't been cut in Japan, some stores just took a loss by selling it below cost. That's not something they can do forever.
As for mass media forecasts, they will align with which ever manufacturer pays for the most advertising.
Don't forget with the console, your just paying for the hardware with part payments over the long term by paying around $20 more for each software title, plus with the PC you get access to the whole of the internet not just one closed in dead end part of it. So the big looser in the console wars is most likely to be the game console idea itself and the only interesting thing will be which company ends up losing the most amount of money achieving that goal.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It looks a little different when you get the punctuation right
t ion+3%2C+wii&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playsta
Anyways, as was already noted, Google trends don't exactly indicate hard scientific data, and especially sales. The 360 outsold the Wii 3/2 in the US over the holidays and the PS3 3/1 yet it lagged behind both of them in the Google trends for that period.
Isn't the goal to sell a profitable product that people like?
The Wii is there, sales are strong because it's fun, they're making a profit and people are happy. This is win for Nintendo. BTW I bought a Wii and Zelda and it's my first Nintendo product.
Xbox360 has the critical mass to encourage continued third party development, lots of games == happy people. Again this is a win.
PS3 most powerful, lots of people like power and they'll pay for it. I think the PS3 will remain a usable console well into the next generation, so this is a win too.
Wow everyone succeeds, how unnewsworthy.
My neighbor's a pretty damn successful stock broker, and while the WSJ and such CAN be useful information sources, he never uses them for their actual predictions. He just uses the backround information they give and then runs with it on his own. It's waayyyyyy to early to say who's winning or losing currently. Especially since SED tech isn't out yet and so HD stuff is still far from mainstream. I live in Lake Forest, and even here the saturation of both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is sparse indeed since most people already had upscaling DVD players. Until one or the other takes over 10% of the market, neither is really winning or losing as they are both still quite likely to go the way of the dodo.
Now granted, you could argue that it should probably be tied to profits, since this is a business we are talking about. However, that's a bit difficult seeing how there's much more to MS and Sony than just their game units (MGS is notorious for losing the company money), so they can afford to be a loss leader. Alternatively, Nintendo is pretty much solely focused on games, so while their consoles may not be the market leader, they still make a profit on each one (GameCube is the best example).
Also, with the market share, comes the spoils: more developers likely to focus on your platform, more exclusives, more games
-- jchenx
With due respects to these "experts", the race for videogame supremacy will be over before 2008/2009. The next generation of consoles will probably be out in 2009.
I'm really surprised the "experts" have missed the obvious point here...
I think MS released the XBox360 about a year earlier than Sony anticipated. I believe Microsoft did this to force Sony to release a console 9-12 months before they were ready. Sony essentially abandoned the very profitable PS2 way too soon to push the PS3 and compete with the Xbox360. In my opinion, Sony managed in the space of 6 months to throw away a commanding lead in videogames. Now they're in 3rd place for the "new" generation. And it's going to be a tough hole to dig out of.
You can argue that the new PS3 has wonderful technology, you can talk about the wonderful WiFi, BluRay, and all of that is true. But people are going into stores and looking at $250 for a Wii (which is still hard to get), $300 for an Xbox360 (even if that price is deceptive), and then $500/600 for the PS3. I think it's a tough sale.
And again, listening to these experts talk about how the PS3 will come from behind in 2-3 years to take over the lead... it's never been done in consoles, I doubt it will happen now.
I'm really surprised at Sony. They know as well as anyone how easily the lead in videogames can be lost. And despite all that they threw that lead away.
If I was Sony, I'd cut prices by $100-150 across the board, get the cheaper unit into stores, get some games out there and advertise the heck out of the console itself. I think they're in trouble at the moment, and the game is MS's to lose right now.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
look ma, no ads!
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Thank god, someone finally realizes that the porn industry always decides the winner of a format war!
Look I upgrade my PC about every 2 years. :)
Since nintendo is making money on every console sold, whats preventing them from releasing much more powerful version in a year or 2. It could be as powerful as PS3 or X-Box but quite inexpensive because all of the components become cheaper by then.
They could call it next generation
I would buy it - Wii costs as much as my graphic card on PC. (And I replace it every 18 months)
I think it's funny that none of the analysts mention pre-installed base of portable units. The 'base station' aspect of these new consoles will play into the equation for sure.
Download services and hand-held integration hopefully will play a big part in this generation. A wireless Four Swords
would be great, and SOCOM3 has some unlockables when you plug
your PSP into a PS2 USB port. I also remember hearing that PS3 has a download service already in Japan.
If Sony and Nintendo can leverage their handheld sales from
the last year properly, they will make up ground they lost
from the Xbox360's head start.
Someone is a little too excited about the letter "s". Yes, we know "s" is awesome, but really: everything in moderation.
...because the other consoles are purchased only by loser moron fanboys.
After his latest blunder, in which he allegedly blindfolded himself and threw darts at a chart on a wall to determine who will win the current generation game console "wars", one Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Morgan Securities, is no longer well-respected.
Personally I see the winning game console being a PC. With the falling cost of high performance hardware getting to the point where the open system is cost competitive on the initial purchase and it will play sufficiently attractive games, then the closed console systems will disappear (unless they want to give them away free, as per the M$ prediction, in that case I will pre order a few thousand for the parts).
No.
I think you have it the otherway around, the consoles are going to eventually canabalize all functions of the PC. Thus the goals of the consoles are for one of them to eventually win the home coputer OS war.
The PC's % of the game market has been stedily declining. In recent years even the raw numeric sales of PC games has declined too. If declining game sales is a sign of winning the console war, then the dreamcast must have won the last round since it's sales declined to almost 0.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Do these people's opinions really matter? It seems like they speak with 10,000 analysts, get 40,000 diffrent answers, and when one is correct (suprise suprise) they tout it as some achievement, beacuse they guessed the right number.
Who cares who wins in 2007? I sure dont. If you like Wii, you'll go Wii. if you like PS3, guess what, you'll go PS3. Xbox? Do a little dance and make a 360!
The only true winner is the consumer, because they have a choice, IMHO. Analyze that.
There are three analysts on TFA and the first two basically don't declare a winner. It's far too early in the game, so it is better if they don't risk such estimates based on wild speculation.
:)
Now there is the third, "respected" analyst. Example argument from TFA:
"If I'm right, Sony will end up winning the high-definition format war, and once there are millions of Blu-ray enabled PS3s floating around, I think we will see sharper graphics on PS3 games compared to Xbox 360 games."
Where does he base this? Because maybe just because the PS/3 touts "1080p"? Or because Blue Ray "is larger so it can fit sharper graphics... and stuff". Any hardware geek (like several here), just looking at the specs can see that the 360 has a more capable GPU (compare unreleased R600 level GPU to previous gen G70...), and a CPU which is easier to use effectively.
Not to mention that by 2009 when the PS/3 will have become "affordable", it will no longer be a nexgen system, so it will only sell if it already has a huge base (thus developer support).
I don't see such a bright future for the PS/3, unless something big happens (half price anyone?), but if Sony wins the HD wars, they will probably not really care. Royalties from Blue Ray will bring more money
Skwiskar Skwigelf: "Games Analysts Weighs in Ons Console.... Warses." ..... I approve."
Nathan Explosion: "Man, I hate Slashdot. They choke all the bandwidth and then it takes forever to get to tits."
Pickles the Drummer: "What they OUGHTTA do, see, is get all the console designers in a room together and just have 'em knife each other until there's only one left."
William Murderface: "These articles make me wanna kill myself..
Toki Wartooth: "Oh boy! First po --- awww. I never gets the first posts."
- mantar
"My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008, and games start looking noticeably better in 2009. That's when Sony starts looking like the winner of the next generation battle. All of this is pretty far out, and a lot can happen with pricing to change things. For example, if Sony gets down the cost curve for Blu-ray and Cell processors, [the PS3] may be below $300 shortly thereafter. It's hard to say that this will happen before 2009, but it could. That would change everything."
Why do I see the term "Sony" used 3 times in this quote and not one mention of "Nintendo" or even "XBox"? Seems like an outright biased and overly opinionated review, completed void of the fairness and ethics.
Sales in PC games has actually risen, there is just so much available that sales for any individual game has fallen. Let alone a full range of free games available for PC as well as an ever growing number of free on line games. A console is the ultimate technology lock in, basically a dead end for the consumer.
Sure consoles suit the anti copying fraternity but the suck for the end user. Just try selling a PC that only uses software approved by one company, only plays content approved by one company, and only uses hardware approved by one company and only connects to one companies version of the internet (you might manage some of them but definitely not all of them).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
No, obviously not. They'll just stop ordering new stock.
Wow what a blatant skewing of the search terms to get the results you wanted. "xbox 360" compared to "playstation 3. wii"? "hd dvd" versus "blue-ray" (there's no "e" in blu-ray). Who in their right mind is searching for the term "playstation 3. wii" period and all?
b =0&geo=all&date=all
t ion+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
c tab=0&geo=all&date=all
What's funny is if you fix the spelling of the comparisions, the terms you favored lose out in all cases. Not that this sort of BS metric means much anyway...
"xbox 360, wii"
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+wii&cta
"xbox 360, playstation 3"
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playsta
"hd-dvd, blu-ray"
http://www.google.com/trends?q=hd-dvd%2C+blu-ray&
"Sony is hanging by a thread financially."
That's not in any way true. Multiple Apple's sales by 3, and their profit by 4, and you got Sony. Sony has $32B in short term assets. Sony is quite healthy, financially. I don't know where you got your information.
I don't respond to AC's.
The reasons so many people are going with consoles instead of computers are:
Multiplayer on one system (thus more directly social)
Larger screen (and increasingly, equal resolution to PC)
Easy setup/compatibility (plug it in, put the disc in, it works)
Simple controls
Easy online play (at least for the Xbox/360.. PS3 is still a question mark)
Consoles are not aimed at "people who can not afford full fledged open hardware", they are aimed at people who want an easy, fun gaming experience. No matter what your personal experience, the PC is the most complicated gaming platform there is. There is still no easy way for a mother who knows nothing about games to walk into a store and know if their computer can play any given PC game. On the other hand, they know that a game for PS2 will always play on PS2.
If sony drops thier price do you think it will go unaswered by either nintendo or Microsoft??? Its very very likely that Microsoft would follow suit and do the same if not being the market leader in doing so... In wich case Sony will be grasping at the possiblity of making some sort of profit... Even though the cheap ps2 is making them a killing at the moment. I work in the gaming industry... My prediction at the pricing of consoles over the next year maybe two years is that Xbox will have a newer model out that includes HDMI bigger hard drive, gigabit ethernet and possibly wireless installed (If not they will sell 802.11n adapters)that will be competitively priced at 349.99-449.99 the current xbox premium system will drop to 249.99-349.99 and the current xbox core system will drop to 149.99-249.99... Nintendo of course will follow suit and drop thier current system down to 149.99-199.99 to compete with the 360 at the lower price range.. But they will also introduce Wii Premium to stay at the higher price of 249.99 this will include better graphics, media center functions, more memory, ect... Sony of course will have to follow suit if they have any hope of doing well and drop the ps3 by 100 dollars at the very least. This is all elementry stuff here.. Anyone makes a move in price the others will follow..
What you're really talking here is demographics. If you're selling to mothers, the Wii has a great story to tell. Low price, easy setup, and games that won't make her eyes turn really big and make her whack the box with a fireplace poker. Plus, she may even enjoy some of the games herself.
But have we forgotten there actually still exists a market for a certain demographic that has come to be known as the "hardcore gamer"? Yes, I've heard lots of arguments that Wii players are "real" gamers and are "dedicated to gaming." So be it. But they're not the moms. You can't have it both ways. Either moms are driving sales or they're not. I think they are, and by your comments you certainly think they are, too. If "hardcore gamers" were driving sales, they wouldn't care about stuff like how hard it is to setup a damn console.
So we have the other hardcore gamer. Theses are the guys who want cutting edge graphics, very large pixel counts, full anti-aliasing and games they'd refer to as "bad-ass." These are not moms. They are not competing with moms. They will not buy the Wii as anything other than a novelty. It will most certainly NOT replace their main gaming machine.
And what is that machine? Well, it could be a PS3 or Xbox. These have very cool graphics, plus they hook up to the bad-ass HDTV with the bad-ass 60" screen. But the problem with these boxes is that PC games are already starting to beat them in graphics. Crysis is a monster. There are others. Two years from now the cream of the crop are going to be something the PS3 could only dream of.
Consoles are cool. I broke down and bought one and I actually like it. It really is less of a hassle than the PC. But the Wii is never going to be so much less of a hassle that I'd choose it for Far Cry over a PC. I would not play BF2 on a PS2. Though I've gotten to the point where the Dual Shock is usable, it will never beat keyboard and mouse.
Hard core gamers will absolutely compare bad-assedness. Note that I didn't say, "fun-factor", "cost," or "easy of use." When shear thrill is what a "hard-core" gamer is looking for, he's going to look at Gears of War, Crysis and Oblivion. He might play Mario Galaxies and he might even have fun with it, but he won't get a heart thumping thrill like he will when running for his life through the almost perfectly rendered jungle, leaves rustling by him as he moves through the underbrush, bullets whizzing overhead and a frag grenade going off to his right rear on the surround sound as the game goes into slow-mo as he's just about to die, but just makes it behind a rock. That is a thrill. All I've heard about the Wii is that it's "fun."
Will the Wii win. Probably. If you're talking dollars, it'll make a boatload. Not only will your mom buy it for you, but even hard-core gamers like to have a little fun now and then. But hard-core gamers will never be satisfied with the Wii alone, and if they're not married to the idea of a console, they're going to find the realism of some of the new PC games very hard to resist. If they do want a console, both the 360 and the PS3 will give them a big thrill. Nintendo may "win," but there's no way in hell they can crush the rest of the market, because they simply cannot compete with the rest of the market. They chose "fun." That's the best they're going to give you. Many people will want more than that, and they'll keep everything else kicking just fine until gen. 8, including the humble PC. If you doubt this for a second consider that Grand Theft Auto was, I believe, the top selling game on the PS2, which totally dominated the last gaming cycle. Though it's not my cup of tea, many people clearly loved it. They will not forget that they loved it. They are more likely to see live executions on Sesame Street than to see this game show up on the Wii. The mom's wouldn't like it.
Interesting post, and thanks for introducing me to the "compare" function in trends, which I haven't seen before.
c tab=0&geo=all&date=all
However, pedantic note -- you spelled "blu-ray" incorrectly. With the silly correct spelling, the results for "blu-ray" and "hd-dvd" are roughly even...
http://www.google.com/trends?q=blu-ray%2C+hd-dvd&
But thanks again for pointing out the function.
A lot of people keep saying the Wii is being underestimated but as a Wii and PS3 owner, personally I think the Wii is being overhyped. I think the lack of enthusiasm for the PS3 will help it in the long run because the hardware is so impressive. The Wii is fun, but it's no revolution. I bought the Wii for Zelda, but I was also hoping that it would be awesome for FPS. Red Steel was a waste of my money, and after playing Call of Duty 3 and Farcry for Wii I'm glad I didn't buy those. The Wii has it's strengths and weaknesses. So does the PS3. The 360 has online, but despite all the flak he took for it, Iwata was right when he said online is a niche.
Anyway, as of now, racing and FPS have yet to be done right on the Wii. Furthermore, if the Wii is anything like the DS, first party games will rock and third party games will blow (look at Square's Mario Hoops 3-3, a big let down). The Wii is going to be my multiplayer system for games like Mario Party, WarioWare, SSB, and sports games. I'm sure there will be some original quirky stuff out there too. But my PS3 is definately my single player system. Of course there will be exceptions (Zelda, Galaxy, on Wii; Fight Night, Tekken, PS3), but for the most part I'm going to play each system's strenghts.
Considering that the single player market is the largest, and it's the market that drove the PS1 and 2 to success, I don't see how the PS3 couldn't come out on top. As much as I love first party Nintendo titles, they lack substance, they lack story. The puzzles keep me playing, but there are games like MGS and Shadow of Colossus which have both. Anyway, I'm glad I bought the Wii, but I'm still waiting for a game like "Brain Age," one that changes my conception of what a game can be. So far the Wii has only offered a different way of playing games, which is better in some cases and worse in others.
Remember Betamax?
Nuff Said
"Hard core gamers will absolutely compare bad-assedness. Note that I didn't say, 'fun-factor,' 'cost,' or 'easy of use.' When shear thrill is what a 'hard-core' gamer is looking for, he's going to look at Gears of War, Crysis and Oblivion. He might play Mario Galaxies and he might even have fun with it, but he won't get a heart thumping thrill like he will when running for his life through the almost perfectly rendered jungle, leaves rustling by him as he moves through the underbrush, bullets whizzing overhead and a frag grenade going off to his right rear on the surround sound as the game goes into slow-mo as he's just about to die, but just makes it behind a rock. That is a thrill. All I've heard about the Wii is that it's 'fun.'"
As one of these "hard core gamers," I beg to differ. I don't particularly care about a game's badass factor. I don't really want to run through any sort of terrain with bullets flying at me. I wanna jump on Goombas and roll through Ice Cap Zone. To characterise all "hard core" gamers as loving that one particular style of game (I will assume you're referring to FPS games) is a fallacy. There's a lot of people -- a lot of GAMERS -- who don't like those kind of games and don't want to play them. There are people who just want to race in Nascar, or eat things as Kirby, or stack tetrads. What I'm trying to say here is that while you may care more about how badass a game is, I don't. I want a fun game that's easy to play, and there are a lot of people who agree with me (Not that there aren't a lot who agree with you, too..)
A lot of people didn't get a PS2 until the slim version came out. You can't judge a console's sucess by the people that buy it in the first year, and you can't see a 'winner' in that same period. I hate to break it to you -- consoles are consumer electronics, not fad clothing. I think it's clear the PS3 will be the top of the heap again this generation just due to the games lined up, and blu-ray and the most affordable online store are just nice add-ons. Are you going to tell me when Lair, VF5, Heavenly Sword, etc comes out in Feb./Mar. you won't see PS3s flying off the shelves? What about when the Final Fantasy and Metal Gear titles ship?
If you disagree with me then bookmark this, and come back and read it after these things happen. I think you'll be surprised at your opinion beforehand.
Losers.
If you think that 2009 will be the year of the PS3, then you're delusional, the Xbox 720 and the Wiiii will be right around the corner by then.
> You do realize that investment firms use analyst's data to make decisions on stocks and bonds
> worth tens of millions of dollars. These aren't some fanboys sitting around pulling data out of
> their ass.
No, they are some con artists pulling data out of their ass. I have never seen an "analyst" being right in any prediction. They seem to score below what random chance would give.
The reason they are used none the less is that the "deciosion makers" are afraid to make decisions, and use the expensive reports a CYA tool.
No wonder people are buying the Xbox 360 instead of the PS3 in the USA at these kinds of price differences if the prices you wrote are correct.
Here in Canada, the Wii is 280$, the Xbox 360 (Core) is 400$, the Xbox 360 (20GB) is 500$, the PS3 (20GB) is 550$ and the PS3 (60GB) is 700$.
So if you have 500$ to spend on an Xbox 360 (20GB), simply adding 50$ allows you to get a PS3 (20GB). It becomes a much tougher sale for Microsoft.
What's wrong with Sony's prices in the USA?! And is Microsoft losing more money on the Xbox 360 in the USA than in Canada?
And what is preventing Nintendo/MS to get out a new version of their console ? I expect that Nintendo and MS will have covered their development cost before 2009, and they'll be able to roll out a new generation of console out. You now Moore's law is still valid and with the current trend of supporting backward compatibility and different version of a console, I guess we could see in coming years games with a "Developed for the XBox 720, minimum requirement XBox 540" ...
A lot of people didn't get a PS2 until the slim version came out.
:) Sony might make a success of the PS3 marketshare wise, but only by taking billions more in losses, and might even have to sit the next round out.
Yup, I happen to be one of those people. But it's not really relevant since Sony was already dominating the console market at that point.
You can't judge a console's sucess by the people that buy it in the first year
Sure we can, combined with the abilities and pricing of the consoles.
I hate to break it to you -- consoles are consumer electronics, not fad clothing.
Yeah, consoles are consumer electronics, not fad clothing, and marketshare matters. It matters a lot. If you're a game developer, are you going to go after a customer base of 2 million or 15 million?
I think it's clear the PS3 will be the top of the heap again this generation just due to the games lined up, and blu-ray and the most affordable online store are just nice add-ons.
Um, no. The PS3 is going to be a very distant third. The Wii is cheap and fun, and the 360 is almost as powerful as the PS3 while costing a lot less money plus it has the best online support of the three.
Are you going to tell me when Lair, VF5, Heavenly Sword, etc comes out in Feb./Mar. you won't see PS3s flying off the shelves?
So? Nintendo is going to keep selling Wii's by the bushel and will...drumroll...also keep releasing new games as well.
What about when the Final Fantasy and Metal Gear titles ship?
I'll yawn. But seriously, yes these popular titles will help, but they wont put Sony on top by a long shot. Two popular exclusive series do not a winning console make. And Sony will not hold on to those exclusive titles unless they either buy out the developers or pay them a hefty fee to stay on the PS3, rather than making a cross platform title or just going with Microsoft or Nintendo. A la Rock Star and GTA 4. And since Sony has to make money on the games as they are losing big on the hardware, they would just lose even more money.
If you disagree with me then bookmark this, and come back and read it after these things happen. I think you'll be surprised at your opinion beforehand.
Why don't we just save the time and you can buy me a beer now.
$300 is for the core system in the U.S. The "full" system is $400, but the reality is that it is discounted to about $380.
Sony is really getting hammered right now.
And the first response really had it wrong... the PS2 "won" out of the gate. It crushed the Sega Dreamcast, and the Gamecube never really got started. The Xbox had a strong first christmas, and then it sort of died. Mind you, not as strong as the Wii this past Xmas.
But that $600 price tag is really hurting Sony.
And their claim that "this system will be state of the art in 10 years" is so stupid that you have to be a real fanatic to begin to believe that nonsense.
FTA:
"One thing, if you look at the Wii, is that the Zelda title [Twilight Princess] had a very high sell-in rate in the first two months. This is an indication that many of the initial Wii purchasers were part of the already converted."
This is total crap. A lot of people bought Twilight Princess(myself included) because it was by far the best launch title. Yeah, there were probably a lot of Zelda fanbois desperate to play the next one, but that number is most likely incomparable to the people just looking for the best game available for their new system.
Of course, I have no proof for this either, so I'm pulling as much out of my ass as Mr. David Cole here.
Nintendo may "win," but there's no way in hell they can crush the rest of the market, because they simply cannot compete with the rest of the market.
You had the right idea but came to the wrong conclusion. Of course Nintendo will "crush the rest of the market", simply because they're a different maket. Their market is, as you put it, "the moms", and related creatures that are also not "hardcore gamers". Obviously the Wii will not crush the "hardcore gamer" market, because they're not really attempting to compete in it. Fortunately for them, their market is considerably larger than the other.
The Majority of Certified Analysts in 2006 did not beat the S&P 500 with their portfolio rec's.
That's right "MAJORITY". Which actually means you'd be better off doing the opposite of what they suggested.
I just read "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" --- highly recommended if anyone is interested in the
mathematical provability of analysts' incompetance. Any analyst who believes he is operating in
an enviornment with a limited enough set of variables to render a prediction, is inherently mathematically
incompetent.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I see people posting articles saying why "They're going to win". ... Yet... they're looking for an excuse as to WHY they want their side to win.
I AM a gamer, and i won't state my opinion as to which consoles i own or which i assume will win. Instead i will take a neutral stance and point out the things that it seems people dont want to point out.
1) Who will win the "dvd format / movie war"? No one. http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/01/04/lg/index.p hp Unlike DVD vs. Betamax back in the day, the new formats are similar enough that they are already making dual compatible players. Who wins? Who looses? Both. The "winner" is the company (for movies anyways) that makes the hardware to do both at the same time. So who wins the movie format? Who cares if both are available and both work on one movie player (since most people will STILL buy a movie player and not watch ALL their movies on a console)
2) Who wins the console wars? The ones with the best games. I've heard this argument SO many times... "M$ has a ton more games AND the system is cheaper! WIN WIN!".... "Wii is better because it's just so random and FUN to jump around" ... "Sony will win, because sony has held the market and they have ties to all the best games / game makers" ....
I'll be honest. Why the hell is everyone conserned with who the winner is. Are guys really so hypnotized by the market, or egotistical to believe that your opinions matter when you say "my X is better than yours"? WTF.
Microsoft is currently "winning" and has more games. Wii is more "fun" though. But Sony does/will have "better" games.
If you love your 360, yay for you. Go play it. If you love your wii... yay, go play it.... same with the ps3 if you ever get ahold of one...
For the "last gen" consoles.... PS2 was "the winner". Can someone explain to me why tons of people i know WANTED .. and DID buy a gamecube then? Or an xBox?
The winner is the one that will (eventually at least) have the most amount of games that you WANT. And that doesn't make it better vs any of the others systems, it just means that for YOU... it's better.
Finally.... since the "losers" will still always be available to the market... why is this argument honestly so mind-provoking to everyone that they must know the answer and argue about it. If we defined a winner right now? Would you throw away your other consoles and only get the "winner" one? Of course not...
Based on a sample size of one from way back when people actually still purchased enough pre-recorded pornography to be economically signifigant...
Console makers can not sustain a 3 year release cycle. Many games are in development for that long. Even the Xbox, which had an incredibly short run due to having production cut the instant the 360 was released, was around for five years.
The PS2 will likely have a 10+ year run, the PS1 had 11 years, the SNES had 13 years...
In 2009 we will be seeing the next generation of consoles. The war will have been over long before then. I'm not so sure the analysts have been following previous consoles, but the first two years pretty much show who is the premiere console, and then we have a year or two left before the next one is out. Sony and Microsoft need to lower their prices big time if they ever hope to outlast what the Wii is capable of. If sales continue through 2007, the Wii will be the next "Playstation".
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Developers move like the wind - the system that makes money attracts them. Right now the Wii looks like it's doing well, and so does the 360. But that's not to say that in 2 years it will be the same. If the install base catches up, a game development business isn't a fanboy and will go along with whatever system makes them the most money, regardless of what their developers think. If the PS2 was so hard to develop for, how did it win the last generation? Because it had the largest install base and guaranteed the largest return.
Obviously you have no experience in the financial world whatsoever - a company the size of Sony, Apple, Nintendo, or Microsoft never has any idea of it's current financial position - it only has quarterly data that's put together a month or two after the fact at best - and since most companies have a funny fiscal year for tax purposes (my company starts it's new year on December 1st), you can never rely on this year's data as it's usually incomplete at best. If you want annual sales, you have to use the previous year's data that is complete - it's too early for 2006 data so you use 2005.
Get a clue.
Are you insane? Are the mods insane? You think the next generation of consoles will be out in 2009? What kind crack are you smoking? Console life cycles are 4 years at the very least (xbox->xbox360). It is more commonly 5-6 years. I don't think MS will have such a short lifecycle on their console again. The only reason they were so fast is that they wanted to correct the mistakes they made from their entry in to the market.
Now you may be right that the console war will be over by then because one will have so large of a marketshare that every third party develops for them and the loser gets few exclusives.
The only reason that the PS3 is a tough sale at this point is lack of games worth playing. It has one game that doesn't suck.
Sony is probably going to be too far behind this round to dominiate like it did with the PS2. But it still can be quite successful. It's superior hardware allows it to have a longer lifecycle. The difference between how the Wii and the PS3 looks is already huge and that gap will only widen as the lifecycle goes on. If Sony can solve the exclusive game problem, then they will do alright. Just no way can they dominate like they did before.
Of course, there isn't really a war. We have three great consoles to choose right now. I don't want anyone to win the war...I want them all to be profitable and continue to make game machines. Only fanboys are dumb enough to want someone to win. The more competition, the better it is for us consumers.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
I would lay money that at E3 2009 all three companies (Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft) will be talking about their "upcomming" gaming systems which will be released in 2010/2011.
...
The only reason that the PS3 is a tough sale at this point is lack of games worth playing. It has one game that doesn't suck.
I would say that the PS3's biggest problems are that it is really expensive, has too few games and offers little benefit for the majority of people who don't have HDTVs; in 2008/2009 it will be a far more moderate price (still more expensive than the competition), it will have an average library of exclusive games (lower sales and a high cost of development will limit the number of exclusive games), and most people will have an HDTV but will the PS3 be able to recover?
Personally, I would say no
By the end of 2007 I would say the PS3 would be lucky to have sold between 8 and 10 Million units worldwide, by the end of 2008 I would be surprised if they had sold more than 20 Million units; I say this mainly because I don't see the PS3 being under $300 until early 2009 and most people are not going to spend that much money on a gaming system. In the same time frame the XBox 360 and Wii could be breaking 30 or 40 Million units sold, if either system is selling near the higher end of the prediction it would make sense for a lot of developers to produce an exclusive game for the Wii/XBox 360 than to port it to the PS3; exclusive games get better reviews, more press and tons of sales simply because they're exclusive (ask a reviewer how much email he gets after he gives a negative review to an exclusive game compared to a multiplatform game if you doubt me).
Basically, much like what happened in the previous generation, by the time the PS3 is ready to compete against the Wii and XBox 360 the competition is over.
The Wii does 480p (and 16:9) which by Definition is EDTV. 720, and 1080 are HD. The PS2 and X-Box has a few games in 720p, and even 1080i. Since the Wii more powerful than the X-Box 1, there isn't a technical reason why they can't support this.
The Wii (like the Gamecube) won't support HD due to a management decision, not due to technical limitations. Granted if the Wii did support 720p, we still wouldn't be getting games that look like Gears of War.
Personally I'd rather think of the Wii being the next NES. :-)
So if the hardware price is equal, why would the consumer be enough of an idiot to get stuck on a closed system and pay 20% more for all their content. Consoles are aimed at people who can not afford full fledged open hardware apart from the minority technology collectors and as the price has risen it has started to squeeze them out.
Though I disagree wildly about your characteization of PC gamers vs. Console gamers here are a few reasons for Console ownership:
1) It just works. No drivers, no compatibility issues. You either own the system or you don't.
2) Couch > Computer chair.
3) Bigger Screen.
4) Better sound system. (Many people who have a home thater setup, stick with the sterio sound on their computer.)
Let alone a full range of free games available for PC as well as an ever growing number of free on line games.
Wii have them too.
Just try selling a PC that only uses software approved by one company, only plays content approved by one company, and only uses hardware approved by one company and only connects to one companies version of the internet.
I think you just desribed the Sparc IV from Sun Microsystems.
VHS is pretty dead too. Oooo burn - you bought that hunk of obsolete tech? LOL!
Who gives a fuck? Every media is replaced every 20 years or so. Here let me play some 16rpm records on your turntable, then we can watch some RCA CED videodiscs, and put some video on the klos-nova-vision system. The quadraphonics will be kick-ass too. Don't forget the adapters for your VHS-C video camera when you record the scene for posterity. Perhaps you should shoot it with your Super-8 film camera or a Kodak DISC instead?
Is that the same WSJ article that quotes that sony is not allowing porn? If so they need to call up sony and do some fact checking. Would have taken a couple of hours TOPS. It was a internet rumor and was hogwash. The major press studios are saying 'no we dont do porn go to your normal people'. The normal people are usually flybynight and do not have BluRay setup yet. As HD-DVD was a small change to the process and BluRay was a major change.
5 .html. And by all accounts sony has stated that they have not met their numbers the numbers they have hit have been at least impressive for a next gen dvd format...
But think about this 800k total sales of BOTH hd-dvd and bluray at the end of dec. EXCLUDING PS3 HD-DVD is winning. Including it and BluRay is stomping it. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-862
Seriously?
Who will even care at that point? The PS4 (which will likely be the name, since Sony is so original with that type of thing) will be out around that time, and the PS3 will be ancient history.
If it takes them that long to pull ahead, I'd say they've lost this generation.
Modern computer use is having multiple devices available at the same time, not paying thousands for a big screen display and then locking it, yourself and everyone else in the household down to one activity at a time. Although admittedly the big screen is locked down to one activity (background entertaining, news, even scifi dvds all day long), everybody is still doing their own thing on their own up close and personal smaller screen.
It just works?? (add barely in there and your getting closer to the truth), what those xbox failures never happened and M$ is lying about the game bug fixes on their closed in network. I dare say, every day is a slooow day for you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Right now we have three determined and compotent console makers battling it out. That's rare in the console world, and good for the consumer. That's why the product lifecycles are so short now - nothing drives technology like a good knock-down, drag-out war.
Moore's law being what it is, if PS3 actually shows signs of life in two years (and that's unlikely, since the market folds in on a leader pretty fast), then a technologically superior console can be cranked out. Nintendo has even learned that they don't have to completely replace the console every generation. Witness that most Wii controllers are actually repurposed GC controllers, and that the Wii chip is basically an upclocked GC.
Someone who has no clue. I rather listen to gamer friends and form my own opinion. Now thats priceless having people who truly care about something instead of someone who doesn't remember why games are great. Does an Analyst "Cough" know how to throw a fireball in Street Fighter II. I think not!
Morality, filters both ways.
if PS3 actually shows signs of life in two years (and that's unlikely, since the market folds in on a leader pretty fast), then a technologically superior console can be cranked out.
You're contradicting yourself. Additionally I think it's way to early for you to be able to call the success of the PS3 "unlikely"; we have to wait to see if people still don't buy it when the first round of good exclusives comes out. If the market squeezes one of the three out, there will be less pressure to develop the next generation, not more. This is even more the case if Sony is the one that gets squeezed out, since Nintendo is essentially a generation behind technologically.
If you consider that most 360s were sold this past Christmas, if Microsoft asks parents to shell out another $400+ after only two years, I think they're going to get a cold response. You're also ignoring what I said about the developers. A game that started development for the 360 or the PS3 this January at one of the behemoth, money wasting development studios may not be ready for release until 2009. You're going to piss off a shitload of developers if you cut the console lifecycle back to 3 years. You don't want to piss off developers, since game availability is the biggest thing controlling a console's success.
There is also some inside info available from the battle for HD in this generation. Microsoft and Sony clearly designed their current consoles for the long haul. Sony because that's all they know, and Microsoft because they have a bad taste in their mouth from the horrible (financial) failure of the original Xbox.
Another thing to note is that there are increasing numbers of dual format players arriving on the market. This leaves the content vendors with the option to pick whatever format they want. In many cases its not Blu-ray. Even if there is an even split it means Sony doesn't get the full market for their technology that they are hoping for. It also means that is a greater chance of people buying movies that won't work in the "one technology" player that is the PS3. That would probably breed some additional ill will with consumers.